UK The ethics of slaughter.

[JacobVeganism]

We weren't talking about legality; we were talking about ethics. To bring a new life into the world and then kill it in order to make room for another life - you were the one arguing that this might maximize the overall good i.e., more individuals having the opportunity to live. If you want to back away from that position, by all means do so, but don't pretend it wasn't the position you were taking.

I don't think i made the argument that it would maximise good, I was merely saying that it was NOT unethical (therefore neutral). There are three options:

1. Have a child and raise them until they die naturally (ethical)
2. Have a child and subjugate them to immense suffering (unethical)
3. Not have children (neutral, neither ethical, nor unethical)
4. Have a child and kill them painlessly and spontaneously.

Why is 3 different to 4? To question this is to question if and why we give life intrinsic value. I personally wouldn't kill animals painlessly, because we have no reason to.

However, if we believe that life therefore has value, shouldn't we apply this to the wild? One lion survives as a result of the destruction of up to 100 prey. How you respond to this also is telling of your opinion. Would you:

1. Find a way in which predator can kill prey painlessly
or 2. Find a way to painlessly eliminate the predator (and somehow control the population of prey).

I'm trying to think ethically, rather than practically.

 

[Mischief]

I don't think i made the argument that it would maximise good, I was merely saying that it was NOT unethical (therefore neutral). There are three options:

1. Have a child and raise them until they die naturally (ethical)
2. Have a child and subjugate them to immense suffering (unethical)
3. Not have children (neutral, neither ethical, nor unethical)
4. Have a child and kill them painlessly and spontaneously.

Why is 3 different to 4? To question this is to question if and why we give life intrinsic value. I personally wouldn't kill animals painlessly, because we have no reason to.

However, if we believe that life therefore has value, shouldn't we apply this to the wild? One lion survives as a result of the destruction of up to 100 prey. How you respond to this also is telling of your opinion. Would you:

1. Find a way in which predator can kill prey painlessly
or 2. Find a way to painlessly eliminate the predator (and somehow control the population of prey).

I'm trying to think ethically, rather than practically.

I think that believing that you have the right to decide who lives and who dies is a product of human arrogance and has absolutely zero to do with ethics; it's all about your desire to play god.

 

[Graeme M]

I think that believing that you have the right to decide who lives and who dies is a product of human arrogance and has absolutely zero to do with ethics; it's all about your desire to play god.

This isn't to criticise this point of view, but I see this said a fair bit. Why is it arrogant to decide who lives and dies, when the world is built on death? I just mean by this that death is an everyday occurrence - it's part of the fabric of life. I am not trying to say it's OK to wilfully kill anyone at all, more that I don't really see why killing someone else is a manifestation of arrogance. For example, killing another human in wartime is generally agreed to be acceptable. As is killing in self-defence. Killing someone for food, when that is the best alternative, would seem to be OK too. So I agree with JacobVeganism, the issue is an ethical one.

 

[Mischief]

This isn't to criticise this point of view, but I see this said a fair bit. Why is it arrogant to decide who lives and dies, when the world is built on death? I just mean by this that death is an everyday occurrence - it's part of the fabric of life. I am not trying to say it's OK to wilfully kill anyone at all, more that I don't really see why killing someone else is a manifestation of arrogance. For example, killing another human in wartime is generally agreed to be acceptable. As is killing in self-defence. Killing someone for food, when that is the best alternative, would seem to be OK too. So I agree with JacobVeganism, the issue is an ethical one.

Many things are "generally agreed to be acceptable" until they're not. Examples: rape, pedophilia, slavery, spousal abuse, racism, etc.

Anytime you kill someone, even in war, you are saying, at best, "My life is more important than yours." ( And mainly you are saying, my interest in X is more important than your life, where X can be anything from the taste of a steak to the price of a gallon of gas.) That is arrogance.

 

[JacobVeganism]

Many things are "generally agreed to be acceptable" until they're not. Examples: rape, pedophilia, slavery, spousal abuse, racism, etc.

Anytime you kill someone, even in war, you are saying, at best, "My life is more important than yours." ( And mainly you are saying, my interest in X is more important than your life, where X can be anything from the taste of a steak to the price of a gallon of gas.) That is arrogance.

Consider what you mean by "playing god". As humans, we have destroyed habitats to create roads, houses and buildings. Do you oppose this fact? Would you rather live in a mud hut in the middle of a forest? Sometimes we "play god" for the greater good. Is a lion playing god when he kills a gazelle? We are nature, we have evolved to build and create, so why is a man-made object any less a part of nature as a bird nest? We shouldn't separate ourselves from other species, and as there is no god, and we are the most intelligent species, it is our responsibility to reduce suffering as much as possible, which is far more virtuous that merely destroying land for our pleasure. If I were a gazelle, I'd bloody well love for a human to play god and prevent the excruciating pain I am experiencing. All I'm saying is justify your argument.

 

[Graeme M]

Mischief, isn't life and death - killing - just a fact about life; that individuals value their life (and their own interests) more than someone else's (at least, most of the time)? Generally speaking I think most of us are of the view that our life is more important than Bob next door's (especially if I am a lion and Bob is a gazelle), at least when the chips are down. I kind of see ethics or moral philosophy as being the means by which we work out how far we should go with that. In the past, we might have just killed Bob and been done with it, now we have to consider whether Bob has a good claim to not being killed. As long as we behave ethically (in accord with our society's moral framework) then whether we kill Bob or not doesn't seem to me to be about arrogance.

 

[Mischief]

Consider what you mean by "playing god". As humans, we have destroyed habitats to create roads, houses and buildings. Do you oppose this fact? Would you rather live in a mud hut in the middle of a forest? Sometimes we "play god" for the greater good. Is a lion playing god when he kills a gazelle? We are nature, we have evolved to build and create, so why is a man-made object any less a part of nature as a bird nest? We shouldn't separate ourselves from other species, and as there is no god, and we are the most intelligent species, it is our responsibility to reduce suffering as much as possible, which is far more virtuous that merely destroying land for our pleasure. If I were a gazelle, I'd bloody well love for a human to play god and prevent the excruciating pain I am experiencing. All I'm saying is justify your argument.

Yes, I oppose the destruction of habitats.

Your entire argument is might=right, where our might results from our "intelligence", namely our ability to create tools to overpower other species.

You want the benefits of intelligence without assuming responsibility for the harm you cause with that same intelligence. There's nothing ethical or admirable about that.

 

[Mischief]

Mischief, isn't life and death - killing - just a fact about life; that individuals value their life (and their own interests) more than someone else's (at least, most of the time)? Generally speaking I think most of us are of the view that our life is more important than Bob next door's (especially if I am a lion and Bob is a gazelle), at least when the chips are down. I kind of see ethics or moral philosophy as being the means by which we work out how far we should go with that. In the past, we might have just killed Bob and been done with it, now we have to consider whether Bob has a good claim to not being killed. As long as we behave ethically (in accord with our society's moral framework) then whether we kill Bob or not doesn't seem to me to be about arrogance.

Of course it's arrogance. I don't see how you can argue with a straight face that it's not.

 

[Mischief]

I think you pro-slaughter "vegans" would fit in better on a hunting board.

 

[JacobVeganism]

Yes, I oppose the destruction of habitats.

Your entire argument is might=right, where our might results from our "intelligence", namely our ability to create tools to overpower other species.

You want the benefits of intelligence without assuming responsibility for the harm you cause with that same intelligence. There's nothing ethical or admirable about that.

I never suggested not to consider harm. I am promoting for research. If we find that there is no way to eliminate suffering without there being other forms of harm, we leave it. I think we should at least look into it. Also, about the might = right argument, I understand where you're coming from: just because we have the ability, intelligence and power to do something, that doesn't mean that it is moral. However, I am justifying my morals, in the minimising of suffering and unnecessary death (whilst considering possible downsides). My point regarding habitat destruction was to disregard your playing god argument, not to justify my belief. Also, to distinguish intervening when another member of our own species is suffering, but not when one of another is, seems rather contradictory, when we are supposed to be giving the same consideration for similar interests (to avoid suffering). If we are to find a way to minimise harm with no down side, we are obligated to implement it. If there are severe downsides, we at least minimise suffering to the point in which the benefits outweigh the consequences, or to a point in which there aren't consequences (if you don't count suffering as a consequence of being idle). This is why I promote research and not practical methods of implementation.

 

[JacobVeganism]

I think you pro-slaughter "vegans" would fit in better on a hunting board.

No-one is pro slaughter for unnecessary reasons, and I can label you dismissive "vegans" who are selective when regarding sentient beings as hypocritical, but it does not benefit debate.

 

[Graeme M]

Mischief, you live up to your name! It is mischievous to take from my comments that I am "pro-slaughter". I am nothing of the sort. But surely in a philosophy forum it's possible to explore the ethical space without claiming any particular stance?

JacobVeganism, I'm not sure I've followed your original question very well. I think you are asking whether there is an ethical equivalence between not creating a life and taking a life. I think in our society, there is not. It would be murder to kill your own child. But also, as I said earlier, I agree with silva - it makes no sense to compare a non-event with an event.

For me, then, your question really is: if I can painlessly kill someone, is it unethical to do so. Objectively no, but ethics is about how we agree our actions within our society, and clearly, killing another human without just cause is unethical. If your parents killed you painlessly, it would be murder. Murder is by definition unethical.

 

[JacobVeganism]

Mischief, you live up to your name! It is mischievous to take from my comments that I am "pro-slaughter". I am nothing of the sort. But surely in a philosophy forum it's possible to explore the ethical space without claiming any particular stance?

JacobVeganism, I'm not sure I've followed your original question very well. I think you are asking whether there is an ethical equivalence between not creating a life and taking a life. I think in our society, there is not. It would be murder to kill your own child. But also, as I said earlier, I agree with silva - it makes no sense to compare a non-event with an event.

For me, then, your question really is: if I can painlessly kill someone, is it unethical to do so. Objectively no, but ethics is about how we agree our actions within our society, and clearly, killing another human without just cause is unethical. If your parents killed you painlessly, it would be murder. Murder is by definition unethical.

Exactly, but because of the society it would create (an unideal one) this, therefore cannot be applied to animals, although the efficiency required to feed the sheer number of meat eaters makes suffering inherent in the industry. And, even if I could painlessly kill an animal that only exists as a result of my doing (and has experienced no suffering), I wouldn't do so because it is unnecessary. However, I do not believe I would be speciesist to do so.